NRG Meeting - 28 January 2004
Teleconference
Present: Chris Disspain (auDA), Jo Lim (auDA), Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ISOC-AU), Natasha McGuire (NSW), Warren Mason (NSW), Greg Windsor (NSW), Cheryl Hardy (VIC), Lloyd Lacey (QLD) (for Mark Jones), Jackie Gill (WA), David Pears (NT), Kerry Webb (ACT), Allan Lebusque (NOIE)
Apologies: Ian Short (SA), Rick Malony (ALGA), Paul Harcombe (CGNA), George Fong (ISOC-AU)
Actions:
- JL to circulate draft minutes and amended paper for item 1.
- CD to raise registrar proposal with auDA Board and report back to NRG.
- NM to draft paper in relation to state portal concept (eg. www.qld.au ).
- NM to follow up with AUSCITY Online and provide recommendation to NRG.
- auDA to write to ALGA regarding the local government resolution. Copy to be sent to NRG members.
Background:
The NRG released draft Domain Name Policy Rules and Guidelines and Registry/Registrar Options for public comment on 28 November 2003. Eleven submissions were received.
1. Domain Name Policy Rules and Guidelines
The NRG discussed issues raised in the public submissions.
- John Longley: Questioned whether 8 committee members was sufficient to represent the community.
The NRG noted that the number is merely a guideline. It would be up to the registrar to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the number of committee members meets the community representation criteria.
- Mitra Ardron: Pointed out the trend away from incorporation among community groups owing to high public liability insurance costs. Thought that the wording of rule 2b needs to be clarified.
NRG members acknowledged the difficulties faced by community groups and volunteer organisations in light of rising public liability insurance costs. However, it was agreed that the registrant entity must have a proper legal status in order to hold a domain name licence, and therefore unincorporated groups are not acceptable. Rule 2b is intended to be read with rule 2a; the wording will be reviewed and clarified if necessary.
- Graham Gunn: Suggested change to wording of rule 1b. Also thought that business should be given access to the domain names.
The wording change to rule 1b was agreed. It was pointed out that documentation about the community geographic 2LDs specifically mentions business as an important stakeholder and part of the local community. Although businesses will not be permitted to license the domain names, they will be encouraged to support and contribute to the community web site portals.
- Brian Tonkin: Suggested that applicants should be able to demonstrate a track record of portal management.
The NRG did not consider this necessary, and noted that it would exclude communities who do not have an existing portal or access to an experienced portal operator.
- Sam Bauers: Raised competition and equity issues regarding community web site portals vis-a-vis commercial portals.
The NRG noted that one of the aims of the Ballarat test case is to incorporate a number of well-established and successful existing portals within the new community geographic domain.
- Chas Cleland: Suggested the following: 1) Community portals should not be reliant on government funding; 2) A fully operational portal should be established prior to domain registration; 3) Existing portals should be linked to the new community portal; 4,5,6,7) Local government should not have precedence in the application for a domain name, or management of the community portal; 8) Committee members should be appointed on the basis of their individual skills and expertise, not the positions they hold; 9) Committee members should be required to give references.
The NRG's response to these suggestions: 1) The Policy Rules mention various acceptable sources of funding, not just government; 2) Setting up a portal before registration would be an onerous requirement. However, it raises the issue of how to ensure that a portal is actually established and that the domain name is not being "squatted". There is a check at each 2 year renewal point. It was agreed that more regular checks or monitoring would be costly and administratively burdensome. It was also noted that the community itself would take action if their domain name was not being used appropriately; 3) This is a matter for each community to decide; 4,5,6,7) The Policy Rules already ensure that local government does not have precedence; 8,9) These are matters for each community to decide.
The Policy Rules will be amended as discussed and circulated to NRG members. The aim is to approve at the next NRG meeting.
2. NSW Test Case Application Forms
The NRG approved the domain name application forms to be trialled in the NSW test case. It was suggested that the longer version would be more effective than the shorter version in helping to determine the type of information that applicants should be required to provide.
3. Registry / Registrar Options
The NRG discussed issues raised in the public submissions. GW declared that he is a member of the OCOS Working Party.
- Nathan Jones: Favoured a single registrar for all 2LDs.
- OCOS Working Party and Bruce Tonkin: Highlighted the complexity of the draft domain name policy rules and the possible anomalies and inconsistencies that would result if commercial registrars were responsible for assessing applications. Suggested that the policy approval function be vested in an independent body, leaving commercial registrars to perform the technical function.
The NRG noted that splitting the policy approval and technical functions between two bodies would likely lead to higher costs. It was suggested that given the community nature of the domain space and the need to keep costs as low as possible, it might be appropriate for auDA to fund the policy approval function. CD agreed to raise the issue at the next auDA Board meeting, and report back to the NRG.
The issue of state portals was raised (eg. www.qld.au). The original OCOS proposal envisaged that state domain names would be used by each state government as a portal for community domain names within their jurisdiction. NM agreed to draft a paper outlining the state portal concept, for consideration at the next NRG meeting.
4. AUSCITY Test Case Proposal
NM tabled a proposal from AUSCITY Online to conduct test cases in a number of towns in SE South Australia and SW Victoria.
It was agreed that NM should follow up with AUSCITY Online and provide a recommendation at the next NRG meeting. NRG members were invited to forward any comments or questions about the proposal to NM.
5. National General Assembly of Local Government Resolution
KW advised that in November 2003 the National General Assembly of Local Government passed the following resolution:
"That the Australian Local Government Association lobby the Federal Government and au Domain Administration Ltd (auDA) to have Local Government Authorities given the right and responsibility to manage internet domain names based on location within the local governments area of government.
The ownership of such domain names be vested in the local government authority for promotion of the community with no rights of transfer."
NRG members were surprised and concerned that the resolution was passed apparently without reference to the policy development work that has taken place so far.
It was agreed that auDA would write to ALGA and request a meeting to discuss the role of local government. It was also suggested that auDA explore the possibility of giving a presentation at the Local Government IT conference to be held in Melbourne in March.
6. NSW Pilot Project Update
NM gave an update on the NSW pilot project. A public meeting will be held in Bathurst during February to discuss the community web site, and negotiations are continuing with the University of Wollongong over a potential test case in Kiama and independent assessment of the pilot project.
7. CGNA Database of Geographic Names
The CGNA undertook in early 2003 to provide auDA with authoritative databases of Australian geographic names for two purposes: the community geographic 2LDs, and the reserved listing for com.au and net.au. GW advised that problems in compiling the databases seem to have been resolved and they should be provided to auDA shortly.
8. Reserve Listing for com.au and net.au
JL advised that the auDA Board has decided to conduct public consultation on whether the restriction on geographic names in com.au and net.au should be lifted.
GW stated for the record that the organisations he represents are opposed to lifting the restriction.
Some NRG members expressed concern that the timing of the public consultation might have a negative impact on the release of the community geographic 2LDs. They were invited to write to the auDA Board before its next meeting on 9 February 2004.
9. Next Meeting
The next teleconference will be on Monday 23 February 2004 at 2pm AEDT.
